Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

4 ©he ©hrtetian index Published Everv Thursday at 67% S. Broad Street, Atlanta. Ga. WORTHY WALKING. The first part of Patil’s letter to the Ephesians is doctrinal. It sets forth in language strong and striking God’s soverignty, salvation by grace through faith, together with the man ifold blessings and exalted privileges bestowed upon them in Christ Jesus. The latter part, consists mainly of exhortations to the performance of j duty, and to living up to the nieas- j ure of their privileges. In the beginning of the 4th chap ter he urges them to walk worthy of the vocation wherennto they were called, and is as appropriate tons to day as it was to the Ephesians. 1. Who called us? As ye know how we exhorted and comforted, and charged every one of you, as a father his children, That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory. 1 Thes. 2:12. This one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forth unto those things | which are before, I press towards the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Phil. 8:13- 14. So that it is God who has called ns. 2. From what, to what, has God called us? From darkness to light; from pen alty to pardon ; from condemnation toacquitalf from guilt to justifica tion; from death to life; from filthy rags to white robes; from sin to ho liness; from being sinners to being saints; from slavery to freedom; from war to peace; from fear to love; from weariness to rest; from despair to hope ; from sinking sand to solid rock; from a horrible pit to a glori ous throne; from hell to Heaven; from gloom to glory. It is indeed a “high calling,” which none but God could have made. There is the Callerami the Calling. Here is the exhortation. 8. Walk worthy of it. It is surprising how much is said about walking in the Bible. That word and its derivatives will afford a most profitable Bible study for every Christian. Wo are told about walking in the counsel of the ungodly ; about walk , lug in the commandments of the Lord, of the effect of walking in the light. Wo are told of walking by faith and of walking by sight; of 0 godly wuilk and an ungodly walk ; of walking with the devil and walk ing with God ; of walking after the flesh and walking after the Spirit. What doos it mean? Simply, the manner of our life, the character of our conduct and conversation. It indicates which way we go, with whom wo go, what wo say, what we do, and the spirit and motive of it. 4. How’ are we to walk worthy of this high calling? Just as we walk worthy of any earthly calling. We make ourselves acquainted with the work appertain ing to that calling. We practice the doing of it. Our minds and our hearts are in it. We are earnest, diligent and watchful of our conduct, I lest we do something inconsistent, and bring reproach upon ourselves and our vocation. Wo keep ourselves thoroughly posted in regard to all its details and about all matters belong ing to it in the business world, and we are always ready to talk about it. But suppose some one should ask us a question about our business, w hich is proper, and right for us to answer, ami we either remain silent or say we do not know’. Suppose that some one comes to our place of business and finds that we are habit ually away. Suppose that we are found at places and engaged in do ing things detrimental to our name as business men, and unworthy of our business itself. In the former course of our conduct we walk wor thy of our vocation, in the latter wc do not. A merchant, or a lawyer, or a doc tor, or a farmer, or a teacher, knows very well what it is to walk worthy of his vocation. It is to honor it, and to commend it by a faithful per formance of the duties involved. The same meaning is applicable to the vocation to which God has called us. We have professed Christ. We are Christians. We have passed from death unto life. We have been born again. We are new creatures, created in Christ Jesus unto good works. Being children of light we have put aw ay the hidden things of darkness. Our citizenship is in Heaven. We are pilgrims and so journers here, aud declare that this is not our place, but that we seek a better country, that is a Heav enly country. Our affections arc set on things above and not on things on the earth. We are trans formed by the renewing of our minds, and are to prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. We are dead to sin, have been buried with Christ by baptism, and have risen to walk with Him in newmess of life. So we are called of God in Christ Jesus. We are Chris tians. Let us talk as Christians and act as Christians. Let us acquaint ourselves with the work of Chris tians. Let us go ■where Christians go, and be prompt when Christian duty calls. Let us be diligent, earn est, watchful. Such a course will bring gladness and peace to our own hearts, power to the church, and honor to Christ. There is no telling the power of worthy walking. Faith lived gives efficacy to faith professed. A man, one day, said to a friend : “Under whose preaching were you converted?” “Nobody’s,” was the re ply, “It was under my aunt’s prac ticing.” An infidel was thought to be ’lying, and his wife being con cerned for him, asked leave to send for some one to come in and pray. After a moment’s thought, the man »aid : “You may send for old man Read. I know him. His life is right.” The old man came and prayed with him. The infidel re covered and became a pious and use ful man. Are our lives right? Is there any converting power in them ? BRITISH POLITIOS- Perhaps it is possible for our rea ders to turn aside for a moment from the political tempest through which this nation is just now passing, to give some thought to our cousins over the sea. We have been asked to briefly explain the political terms seen every day in dispatches in the secular press, such as “conservative,’ “liberal” and “home-rule.” We shall try to do so. Great Britian is a kingdom formed by the union at various times of En gland, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. There are two leading political par ties—the Conservative and the Lib eral. As in this country, there are several minor parties advocating special issues. Formerly the two parties were known as Tories and Whigs. The Conservatives are the successors of the Tories—the Liber als of the Whigs, and the latter name is frequently applied now to the more conservative element of the Liberal party. The Irish or Home Rule party, also known as National ists, are allies of the Liberals. The Home-Rule party is divided into two wings—Parnellites and anti-Parnell ites. The Liberal-Unionists are those who left the Liberals on ac count of Mr. Gladstone’s policy of homo rule for Ireland. They are allies of the Conservatives. , The Labor party is a small group of the Liberals: In a recent issue of one of our ablest secular dailies is an excellent sum mary of these parties, from which we cannot do better than to quote : The difference between the Conser vatives and the Liberals is not easy to define in a few words. The Lib erals like their predecessors, the Whigs, have in general stood for larger popular rights, the extension of suffrage, serve limitation of royal prerogative, reform of systems of representation, and the repression of special privilege to favored classes. The Conservatives or Tories, have formed the party of royalty ami ar istocracy, have been the defenders of the King's prerogative, and in gener al have endeavored, as the term con servative implies, to preserve the old Constitution of the kingdom as free from change as pos sible. Undoubtedly, both par ties have at times, under the stress of party interest, done acts inconsis tent with the principles which un derlie them, but this does not mili tate against the general correctness of the characterization here given. By the act of Union between En gland and Scotland in 1707, the lat ter country retained its own system of courts, many of its old laws and customs, and the established (Pres byterian) church. Hence Scotland has been content under the union rule. Ireland did not fare so well in the act bringing her into the union. She is governed by laws passed by the British Parliament, many of them intended for opera tion only in Ireland. The Irish wish a Parliament of their own to legis late with reference to Irish affairs. This is the substance of the Home Rule demand, though as to arrang ing the details there is much differ ence of opinion. The land question has been a fruitful source of Irish discontent, for the reason that the land is largely owned by non-resi dent landlords, whose exactions for THE CHRISTIAN INDEX; THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15. 1892. rent and eviction of tenants have been longstanding sources of dis content. The remedy now urged for all these grievances is Home Rule, which is supported by the Liberal Party and the Nationalists and resisted by the Conservatives and Liberal-Unionists. In the par liamentary election which has just been held, Home Rule w r as trium phant, its united advocates having obtained a majority of forty in the house of commons. The Conserva tive government has been replaced by a Liberal cabinet, and the “grand old man,” W. E. Gladstone, at the age of 84, is Prime minister for the fourth time. The house of commons is compos ed of 670 members. Os these En gland has 465, Ireland 103, Scot land 72, Wales 30. It will be seen that Nir. Gladstone’s majority of for ty is dependent on the Irish members. England’s members are largely Con servative, while each of the other countries of united kingdom send a majority of Liberals or Home Rulers. Very naturally Americans sympath ize with the Liberals and favor Mr. Gladstone’s home rule policy. The established (Episcopal) church of England is almost unanimously Con servative while probably nine-tenths of the “Dissenters,” or other Chris tian denominations, vote w’ith the Liberals. There has been some hesitation among these latter on the question of Irish home rule, from the fact that Ireland is four fifths Roman Catholic, and the fear that the Irish parliament if established, would be dominated in the interest of that church. But Mr. Gladstone and his abettors may bo safely trusted in that matter. It is simply a question whether a people five millions in number shall have a legislature to make law’s for their own local gov ernment. And on that question, in the end, the liberty-loving Anglo-Saxon race will decide wisely and rightly. NOT WITHHOLDING GOOD. The levers which move the men tal and moral world are in men’s own bosoms ; it is out of these bo soms that the streams of influences flow which mould what we are and determine w’hat awaits us. The problems of human history are re solved by the effect of character on character. The reciprocal action of minds on each other, whether em bracing in co-operation or grappling in conflict, is the great interpreter standing amid all diversities of principles and practices accompanying each with a lucid ex hibition of its origin, nature and re sults. Reserving, of course, the lib erty of the individual will, and the agency of the Divine Spirit, as truths not to be surrendered, the first be cause it is the basis of responsibility and the second because it is the bul wark of hope, we hold that man moves man, and that is all there is of life for the person and of history for the race. With this reserve, then, we say that it is the influence of man which makes or mars the fortune of his fellowman. Here it plants an Eden of delight, there it stretches out a Sahara of wretchedness. There is nothing of evil, how gross soever, to which it has not seduced, nothing of good how lofty soever, to which it has not incited. Urging its multi form appeals from the cradle of the child to the coffin of the centenarian, it has been both a blessing and a curse. A Nero has outraged and destroyed the liberties of mankind, a Washington has vindicated and established them. A Gibbon has infused the poison of scepticism into the current of history; a Rollin has caused them to water and refresh the trees of virtue and of faith. As though God besought them through him Spurgeon spoke to men; but In gersoll as a very“devil’s advocate,”to blaspheme the divine, to blacken the holy, and to belie the true. Thus has man been to his brother at one time a demon, and again an an gel. He has been neither, lot us re member, of necessity. What he has chosen to be, that he has been. In fluence for good is not always, per haps it is never, in exact proportion to that integrity of principle which merits that it should be potent, or to that benevolence of purpose which intends that it should be pure and salutary. It is true, notwithstand ing that while personal election may not decide the measure, it may and must decide the typo and kind, of personal influence. And this decis ion God requires at the hand of each and everyone of us. That man, therefore, can be neither intelligent ly nor consistently virtuous and godly who has not deliberately set before himself this high aim,—that all his voluntary action on the minds of others shall be promotive of their moral purity and spiritual excellence a means to their happiness through their holiness. And this is the high resolve toward which the Spirit of God can never cease to urge every Christian, and for which He can never fail to qualify all those who yield to that urging. Not an unhopeful work this by any means, for it has the authority of God to clothe it with sanction, the help of God to endue it with strength, and the promise of God to crown it with triumph. And yet we wish to say, and to say with emphasis, that it is hard work, hard exceedingly. He who aspires to prove an instrument of good to others, must encounter obstacles more numerous and labor under difficulties more embarrassing than if he could stoop to be an in strument of evil. Human nature, in its fallen state, and especially where its state is denied to be fallen is susceptible of pollution in a higher degree than of purification. The flesh is willing and eager to that which is earthly, the spirit slothful and intractible to that which is heavenly. Whoever entices to ini quity floats with the tide; whoever exhorts to holiness stems the torrent —bids fair to be driven down by it. We may compose ourselves to slum ber, and by the mere connivance of this inactivity, may assist vice to ma ture with a rapid and noxious luxur iancy: but if the seeds of virtue are to be guarded in their tardy growth and the fruits which are so slow to ripen shielded from the hands that would violate them, we must be awake, vigilant, industrious and un tiring. We may stand by with fold ed arms and the multitude will hurry on, with frightful speed quick ened by the sight of us there stand ing along the treacherous descent to everlasting woe; but would we stay their mad career, wc must shake off our lethargy, lay hold on them with a grasp that does not purpose to re lease them, and wrestle long and doubtfully before the struggle which seeks only their salvation can hope for favorable issue. It is for this reason that a Hymeneus and an Al exander may work evil, where even a Paul cannot accomplish counterac tive good; and a Diotrephes may be the originator of mischief, of which a John himself cannot be the com plete corrector ; and a Simon Magus may gain in Samaria ears that were deaf to the voice of the Christ, the Lord of glory, during his two days in that city, the most successful two of his ministry on the earth. You see your calling, brethren; how that he who said unto you : “With hold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it,” therein taxed your hands to the utmost of their power, because no lower measure of power could do the work and save the shame of failure. For verily none among the sons of men need one tithe of the enterprise, the ardor, the energy, the perseverance without which Christians, as not withholders of good, may appear be fore the searcher of hearts and an swer his solemn request, “What do ye more than others?” AN UNLAWFUL AND UNHAPPY MARRIAGE. The tenth year has not yet quite run its course since Dr. T. T. Mun ger, of New Haven, Conn., issued “The Freedom of Faith,” a volume of sermons representing the method and spirit of the movement in theol ogy, which found a nursery mother in Andover Seminary, and took for itself the paradoxical if not contra dictory name of “Progressive Ortho doxy.” The “Hints on Exegetical Preaching” contributed by that wri ter to the Homiletic Review for June serve to show that the movement has been in a surprising degree less marked by any emphasis given to its orthodox features than by progress toward their still further unsettle ment-progress toward the point where faith suffers its freedom to lose itself in revolt and license. The secret of this unexpected rapidity in doctrinal deterioration is also sug gested by the “Hints.” It lies just here : the method and spirit of the progressive orthodoxy prepares the mind as tinder for the spark and flame of that particular form of Ger man investigation into the text of Scripture whieh Prof. Gozen of Princeton distinguishes and desig nates as “tho Anti-Biblical Higher Criticism.” This is that Higher Crit icism which sows tares ; these tares find congenial soil in the progressive orthodoxy. Therefore, they grow as men looked not that they should, and choke the good seed and engross the field. We adduce one specimen of this growth, as furnished by the “Hints.” Dr. Munger says : “Research into the sources and history of the docu ments has gone so far that we are no longer sure that we have a single sentence in the entire Bible in the exact form in w’hich it was original ly written, though we are sure of the substance and drift of it.” This statement is so surprising, that, if it stood alone, we might well be justified in questioning whether the exact form in which it was origi nally written had come into our hands, whether indeed even its sub stance and drift had safely reached us. But it echoes through page af ter page, and we are forced to be lieve that we have in it really the Dr.’s dogmatizing doubt as to the text of Scripture. Look then at its unreasonableness. Notwithstanding the liability to alteration through ignorant mistake or through wilful corruption, litera ture tends toward fixity. The lar ger and stronger current of influences and agencies flows in the direction of preserving its form, and in no slight degree its exact form. Os course, the indifference that suffers it to be neglected, at the same time makes certain that it lies unchanged : and whatever quality awakens inter est for the most part constitutes that interest a plea and protest against change. This protest and plea is prevailing in proportion as there are passages which imprint themselves in the admiration and the memory as they are, because they are fraught with force or gracious with beauty ; in proportion as the themes are such as stir the soul, kindle the feelings, allure the hopes, employ the ener gies ; in proportion as the writers by virtue of their position, their person ality and their productions win to themselves the readers’ sympathy and trust and reverence ; in propor tion as there are several organiza tions or prevalent public usages which derive their origin from the literature, shape themselves by its authority and draw their inspiration from its spirit; in proportion as it spreads among mankind, and rival schools, win rival races, differing in their interpretations of its pages, guard these pages each from corrup tion by the other. These and many other lines of thought assure us that we may safely rely on literature as not unlikely to preserve its form, for all practical pur poses, its exact form. If this were not true, there is no literature of tho past on which wo could rely. But we have relied on the literature of Greece, on Homer, Hesiod, Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, Demosthenes, Plutarch. We have relied on the literature of Rome, on Cicero, Cmsar, Virgil, Hor ace, Livy, Tacitus, Juvenal. We still rely on these. Rely on them we will. No scholar will ever venture to group the first seven of these wri ters together as representing Greek literature, or the second seven as representing Roman literature to say, We are no longer sure that we havrfj a single sentence of their en tire works in the exact form in which it was originally written. And yet this unsaid and unsayable thing as to them, is precisely the thing that Dr. Munger says as to the entire Bi ble ! He says it as to the Old Tes tament, though the Old Testament is made up (he tells us) of separate “books that are largely independent of each other, that are the sacred writings of the Hebrew nation, are nearly its whole literature ;” suggest ing the question why national litera ture should be pervaded through and through with this gross uncer tainty only when it had made itself the medium for conveying to man kind the purest and the noblest The ism the world has ever known ? He says it especially of the New Testa ment ; suggesting the question why the Greek tongue, possessing the power of definite and sure trans mission when speaking for a nation, should be so utterly shorn of that power when called to speak for a Church gathered out of all the na tions through all the ages, nay, rath er, to speak to that Church for its one divine head, the Son of God, the Savior of sinners ? It cannot be. The impossible to literature has not happened and happened only to the literature to which its happening is most impossible ! The matter is plain, even though wc may have failed to put it plainly. The sentence quoted from Dr. M’s “Hints” amounts to this dogmatizing statement: that so far as regards the exact form of the text and the cer tainty of knowledge on our part, the original Scripture have perished from off the face of the earth. There is much infidelity in the statement and the germ of more. We owe its adoption by Dr. Munger, perhaps, too, we owe to its appearance in the Homiletic Review, to an ntermar riage between the “Higher Criticism” of Germany and the “Progressive Orthodoxy” of New England. That intermarriage will not be without a numerous progeny, to disturb the peace of Zion, to sow the land thick with seeds of manifold error, and to bring in ecclesiastical innovations to the hurt and w’ounding of souls. We should withstand it resolutely; and looking at the matter with this con viction we may recur again to the “Hints on Exegetical Preaching.” Meanwhile, let us express the hope that the Dr. shall always be able to voice his prospect of heaven with Isaac Watts, “Sweet fields beyond the swelling flood Stand dressed in living green even though he seems to be nearing now the condition of the bewildered sister who sang the next two lines, “So to the Jews old Something stood, W hile Something rolled between.” For him, if not for her, these “old Somethings” are so perilously on the W’ay to nothing! AN EXPLANATION. We are requested to give an ex planation of the meaning of Acts 8 : 17. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. The effect of the persecutions that arose after the death of Stephen was to scatter all the disciples through the regions of Judea and Samaria, “ except the Apostles.” Philip who had been a deacon but was now an evangelist, went down to the city Samaria, or as some say, to a city of Samaria, “ and preached to them Christ.” 1. Note first, that Philip was not an apostle. The twelve remained at Jerusalem, while all the others were scattered. It is expressly said “ all were scattered abroad through the regions of Judea and Samaria, “except the Apostles.” It is im portant to attend to the fact that Philip was not an apostle in order to understand why Peter and John were sent to Samaria after the apostles heard that the people there had re ceived the word of God. Second, notice theme the of Phil ip’s preaching,— “He preached to them the Christ.” Notice, also, that. Philip gave proof of his divine call by the miracles he did.” From many who had unclean spirits they came out, crying with a loud voice; and many that were paralyzed, and that were lame, were healed. 2. Next note that those who heard, and saw the signs Philip did, “ be lieved Philip publishing the good news concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ.” Note also,” they (those who heard and believed) were baptized, both men and women.” Philip preached Christ crucified, “ the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the w orld,” and the good news concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ.” Those who heard, gave heed, and believed, were baptized, and no oth ers. They were “men and wom en.” 3. Now observe, when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God they sent Peter and John, two of their num ber who were regularly appointed and commissioned, and clothed with special miraculous power by Christ himself, to organize his church, that they might “ pray for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for he had not yet fallen upon any one of them; but they had only been bap tized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” They had believed, had been bap tized into the name of the Lord Je sus, but the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen upon any one of them. In that last statement lies the dfficulty. A careful reading of the chapter; from the beginning, will clearly show that it means the Holy Spirit had not come upon them in its miracu lous power. They had received its ordinary influences. They had been led by it to accept Jesus as the Christ, the Anointed One, the Mes siah, the Sin-bearing Lamb. They had been regenerated, had experien ced a personal, saving faith in Jesus, and bad been baptized into his name, but had not been clothed with the extraordinary power of the Holy Spirit. They could not speak with tongues, nor heal diseases. Christ had ordained that this pow er should be bestowed in answer to the prayers of tho apostles and the laying on of their hands, alone. Philip was not an apostle, and could not confer this power. Hence Peter and John were sent down from Jerusalem to do this special extraor- dinary work. It was in answer to their prayer, and the laying on of hands that the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit was conferred. Some persons construe this pas sage as affording example and au thority for receiving baptism and joining the church before conversion. A candid study of it, and an un prejudiced desire to discover the truth, will show that the people of Samaria, spoken of in this narrative, heard, believed, were baptized, re joiced in the good neivs concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, and therefore, they were fit subjects of the Kingdom of God, and to receive the extraordina ry gifts of the Holy Spirit, through prayer and the laying on of hands of the Apostles. They w’ere regen erated, converted, before baptism, or uniting with the church. There is no authority for inverting this order to be found anywhere in the New’ Testament. PRIZEFIGHTING. The scenes enacted in New Or leans, during the past week, under the auspices of the Olympic Club were simply brutal. Such contests pass under the name of “manly sports.” There is nothing manly about them. Man is endowed with reason. In that savage work reason was dethroned and brutish passions ruled the hour. It was more degrading than dog fights or the fierce conflict of enrag ed tigers. Brutes know no better, men do. That men engage in such contests, proves that they are worse than brutes. McAuliffe received as his prize, $ 10.000 ; Dixon, the negro, 8 30. 000; Corbett, $ 35. 000. Fifteen to twenty thousand people witnessed the bloody fights. Not less than 8 400, 000 changed hands on the spot, leaving out of the count the money bet all over the Uni. ted States, and other parts of the world. It was an occasion for gambling on a huge scale. Men, w omen and children all over the land were greatly excited and.' eager to know results. The telegraph flashed the news as the fights progressed to anxious crowds. The papers were filled w’ith like nesses of the fighters, and sensational illustrations, and descriptions of the fights. All these things present a sicken! ing spectacle, and show rapid down ward strides in the moral tone of society. All the agencies employed in giv ing publicity and importance to these bloody performances aid in debasing moral sentiment, in exciting brutal ambition in the minds of the young, and in stirring up and fostering the worst passions of the human heart. It is hoped that all decent, refined, civilized, and Christian peo ple will frown upon such savage work. In his recent essay on Herrick the poet, Swinburne says : “He knew what he could not do, rare and in valuable gift.” A gift so “rare” in deed that in Swinburne himself it is utterly awanting. Had he possess, ed in any measure this sure sense of one’s own personal limitations which sends the provision of inevitable failure as a warning agaiust fruitless effort, he would never have repeat ed and more than repeated in “Laus Veneris” the mistake of Byron in “Don Juan.” He would not have attempted to combine the genuine poetic inspiration, not with natural and sensuous only, but with the sen sual and immoral; to sow in the soil of lust seeds of imagery and senti ment from which might grow what ever charms in love’s flowering and whatever feasts in love’s fruitage j to take the vistaires of imagination meant to robe beseemingly and be witchingly “the true, the beautiful, and the good,” and clothe with them, while men approved and applauded, the passions that ally us with the brute, and if we suffer them to rulo make us the brute’s inferiors. An “invaluable” gift, too, since to have possessed it would have saved Swin burne from the blunder which must be fatal to his best and highest am bition as a writer ; the blunder that arrays the moral trend of thifigs, ths mightiest in the world of mind against his plea for worthy fame and puts the conscience of humanity forever and ever in the witness stand to testify adversely on the question of his claim to the loftiei immortality. “I would like to sound the praise of Hood’s Sarsaparilla over the en ' tire universe,” writes Mrs. Longe necker of Union Dcp Penn.